Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

By regurgitating what others have said on the subject you've just proven that all you care about is appearing to be "in the know". Anybody can throw out buzzwords without actually possessing the skills under discussion, and that's you, end of story. Your refusal to take a seat is frankly sad.

Occasionally, I despair of the fact that few people even wish to think for themselves. You seem one of those occasions. No one appears to have instructed you on the martial consequences of rudeness, but you have thoroughly reassured me that one day, likely very soon, someone certainly will. I sincerely hope that you profit from it

Since I am not judging form comments but from what I see based on what I have felt, I'll won't tell you how he does it. I'll show you. Since there are no comments to enlighten you, you may miss it but you can read what I have written and you might figure it out

Try looking at 4:33 - 4:36; 4:55-4:57 again at 5:02 - 5:04; 5:35 -5:39; 6:05 -6:08. Of course, the same thing is in EVERYTHING he is doing -- but those are the most emphatic ones you might be able to see. You might even try thinking about what you see. You might even go look up things worth thinking about when you see it and try thinking with those tools in hand. It's amazing how that works.

Quote:

Dan Austin wrote:

I just don't know the particulars of. Neither do you.

A mind reader, too ?

Quote:

Dan Austin wrote:

You've never fooled anyone on this point, and your refusal to just say "I don't know how to do it" is at this point effectively lying.

Rudeness is not redeemed by a foolish ignorance, much less a headlong foolish ignorance. For your own sake, please don't lead with the chin when insulting people like that -- it will hurt.

In a normal situation, in a rational discussion, a person with a natural curiosity about a topic would simply ask to see and feel what's being talked about. It's only logical and reasonable. But this is not a normal situation. It's dysfunctional. Why not just let Erick go and discontinue further pointless debate and arguement unless and until he decides to come around of his own accord?
Unless y'all enjoy this game, too -- kind of like some people get a weird masochistic pleasure out of chewing the skin on the insides of their cheeks 'til it's raw.

Good luck to you, Erick.

----------------------------------------------------

'You are old', said the youth, 'and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak -
Pray, how did you manage to do it?'

'In my youth', said his father, 'I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life.'

-- from "You Are Old, Father William" (Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland")

Occasionally, I despair of the fact that few people even wish to think for themselves. You seem one of those occasions.

I'm an occasion?

Quote:

No one appears to have instructed you on the martial consequences of rudeness, but you have thoroughly reassured me that one day, likely very soon, someone certainly will. I sincerely hope that you profit from it

That sounds like a challenge. Trust me I will be more than happy to have you show me the error of my ways in person.

Quote:

Since I am not judging form comments but from what I see based on what I have felt, I'll won't tell you how he does it. I'll show you. Since there are no comments to enlighten you, you may miss it but you can read what I have written and you might figure it out

More talk, no walk. Typical. And now you're insinuating that you've felt Chen Bing or some relative of his and know what he does. You truly have no shame when it comes to just talking, do you? Who have you felt, and what did you learn? Go ahead, enlighten everyone instead of tapdancing. It's OK, no one believes you can do it. But please, use my "rudeness" as an excuse, I'm sure you were just about to reveal the hidden knowledge for the benefit of all, but I spoiled it.

Quote:

Try looking at 4:33 - 4:36; 4:55-4:57 again at 5:02 - 5:04; 5:35 -5:39; 6:05 -6:08. Of course, the same thing is in EVERYTHING he is doing -- but those are the most emphatic ones you might be able to see. You might even try thinking about what you see. You might even go look up things worth thinking about when you see it and try thinking with those tools in hand. It's amazing how that works.

It's amazing how you seem to think that people will overlook the fact that you don't actually explain what the "thing" is in terms of how to do it, because you obviously can't. This is not a court of law, where you can hope that by omitting the concession of any point you might get lucky and have it seen your way. This is a court of public opinion, and your behavior simply looks like some sort of emotional issue where you have a need to seem more knowledgeable than you are.

Quote:

Rudeness is not redeemed by a foolish ignorance, much less a headlong foolish ignorance. For your own sake, please don't lead with the chin when insulting people like that -- it will hurt.

Constantly polluting threads with your pet nonsense is rude. As to your insinuations about leading with the chin and possible consequences, I would be more than happy to do so in person. However I am confident that we will never hear "I've met Erick and his skills are good" because you'll never meet with anyone and demonstrate just how empty your talk is.

Hi guys. I have been away having some fun in the sun.
WOW!
I agree with Chris and Dan, there is no real debate going on here to model the truth, that's long past. Erick is playing games with the ones presenting their side and mostly debating the debating style rather than offering anything of substance in reply.
Case in point when Rob or I or anyone who can do some things over these last few years offers a description of movement, Erick then states what they are doing in western terms. When the person who can actually do it states that isn't -it-Erick responds "they don't understand his terms."
He is just now debating with two engineers one of whom is (of all things) a robotics engineer, who himself has felt and can do some of these things and who has felt others who do it, and both engineers are telling Erick he's wrong in his descriptions. He has the audacity to tell these engineers they don't understand the math and physics involved.
Were -he-seeking truth he would accept their rebuttal and move the discussion forward. He isn't. Instead he is telling engineers who are more capable then he due to the combination of both education and hands on experience-that they don't get it. For me it pretty much destroyed any credibility to the honesty of the debate. There is no seeking of a truth here. It’s all defense.

One last thing

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

My teacher has pointed out that Dan is overly focused on the ki of earth and not sufficiently concerned with the ki of heaven. We don't train to resist "pushes." That's not to say that we "can't" -- that is saying that we don't We train to enter pushes. We do however train to aiki age and aiki sage, although those terms are not commonly used.
Both aiki age and aiki sage, in my experience, are related to the ways in which the movement of ki (furitama) is connected (musubi) to that of the opponent. Juji frames aiki in musubi . The nature of that relationship and shape drives the interaction. The rest is dynamic consistency of musubi and furitama at a largely subconscious level. If furitama and/or maai arrive in juji at musubi -- kuzushi results.

This simply isn't true. You are the first to note and then repeatedly chastise folks for presumption, and you don't retract or apologize for it either. Your teacher, or anyone else simply reading has no clue what I do as I don't talk about it on the net. None-the-less you of all people presuming to tell me about aiki-age and aiki-sage is quite over the top. At least you gave me a source to identify your lack of understanding of the subject we keep discussing-your teacher.

Quote:

First of all -- some compelling reason to go to Boston. Second of all -- some compelling reason. Dan wants "credibility" -- someone to be believed. Why? I cannot say. .

This saddens me Erick. But thanks for letting me kow where you are coming from befor I came to visit. You take just enough care in insulting me, instead of sticking to the points, to fall under acceptable standards for AIkiweb.
Make no mistake, I extended a clear and sincere offer to show you and discuss things-at my expense- during a family vacation, and then buy you dinner after. This is what I get for the trouble? You turn around a kind offer and insult my motives as some "needy act" for extending it? Gees Erick. Come on man, what's up with that?
The offer is now removed. I would however, still like to call on both you and your teacher to see what I am missing in my understanding. Notice I am not insulting you- just sticking to the subject of your argument- that you now understand aiki better than me.
To make it definitive and to address your discussion of me. I state for the record that: I believe neither you or your teacher have any ability to demonstrate an understanding of this topic in depth and will prove -upon testing- to be incapable of demonstrating anything of practical value regarding the use of ki and aiki to me.

Here is your response to Dan Austin when he mentioned the same things. I repeat your advice to him...back at you.

Quote:

No one appears to have instructed you on the martial consequences of rudeness, but you have thoroughly reassured me that one day, likely very soon, someone certainly will.
Rudeness is not redeemed by a foolish ignorance, much less a headlong foolish ignorance...For your own sake, please don't lead with the chin when insulting people like that -- it will hurt.

That was rude! I re-read the entire thread amd I am surprised at the level of insult you dish out and you donlt get the same in return. Folks challenge your understanding of the subject-and your debate style. You insult their intelligence and their integrity and motives.

I figure since you and your teacher now want to talk about my limitations on aikiweb, and the aikiweb community set standards by asking me -in very direct terms -many times-to step up and be tested, which I have fulfilled, many times, I guess its you and your teachers turn now. In keeping with budo protocols-unlike the nature of the ones I received previously- I will come to you. I'm a budo guy. That's how it's done.
Now, before I hear all manner of calls of rudeness and such.
a) This is in keeping with your own described cautions and standards offered to Dan Austin
b) It is in keeping with the types of testing and standards asked of some of us right here.
ANd truth be told, according to many many folks here they were thankful to all parties, Mike, Ark and Rob, Me, and most of all Jun for bringing the subject to light and moving the discussion to a mat among budo enthusiasts.
SO, I am asking for you and your teacher to demonstrate my limitations and lack of understanding-you so casually discussed here- on me, in person!
In case you missed it- it is you who are leading with your chin. I am simply doing what you said someone will sooner or later do to Dan A....to you.
A simple answer will suffice. Lord knows, that accorfing to you- I may not understand anything else!

Edit time ran out
I wanted to state that unlike your caution to Dan A. It doesn't have to hurt when you lead with your chin. I can make my point in many other definitive ways, and still play nice. Its the skills that matter to me foremost. I understand fully that methods of application is my own prejudice. And for that matter-lets use yours and see who does it better!

More talk, no walk. Typical. And now you're insinuating that you've felt Chen Bing or some relative of his and know what he does. Who have you felt, and what did you learn?

No. I've felt my teachers. I need no more apart from doing the work and thinking about it, and doing it better. What do you do? My training arc is no secret here. And I will not deny you the pleasure of looking for it.

Quote:

Dan Austin wrote:

It's amazing how you seem to think that people will overlook the fact that you don't actually explain what the "thing" is in terms of how to do it, because you obviously can't.

I have explained, at length that either you've not paid attention to or could not be bothered to look for, nor paid attention to what is in the SPECIFIC video portions I directed you to. I don't play hide the ball and according to Jun's magical counter box 50,000-odd views later it seems no secret to anyone but you.

That doesn't mean those folks agree with me or that I am right, but you admit you don't know what you are seeing in that video, but you can tell ME I don't know what I am looking at? And without bothering to work out what I have said on the matter or what errors I may have made. Profound. I've made at least one error, as full disclosure, which was charitably addressed by someone else and which I promptly worked through and then admitted upon confirming. But even that was merely an error of degree, not of principle or application. If you wish to show more errors of mine (and there may be some, Lord knows) step up to the current level of play with your criticism, please.

But if Jun's equally magical "Search" function is too difficult to employ (and in no particular order):

Case in point when Rob or I or anyone who can do some things over these last few years offers a description of movement, Erick then states what they are doing in western terms. When the person who can actually do it states that isn't -it-Erick responds "they don't understand his terms."

No. Simply that they have never addressed these arguments in those terms. It is pointless to get into the "argument -- contradiction." "Yes, it is --No it isn't" Monty Python routine. It was funny, once. I've put my thoughts out there to advance my thinking and for reasoned criticism, but that is not why I joined issue with this debate, and why I have never had any real hope to expect any better. You have brought debate to a close, in terms that are now very clear, and were the reason for my entering into it with you.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

He is just now debating with two engineers ... Were -he-seeking truth he would accept their rebuttal ... Instead he is telling engineers who are more capable then he due to the combination of both education and hands on experience-that they don't get it.

I've no idea what kind of engineers they are, I only know they have not addressed the points presented, which, whether they are engineers or not, shows nothing. I am certain that is not what passes for debate in engineering these days. In my circles, where I hire and regularly examine such engineers, their admission of a lack of understanding does not constitute any "rebuttal" in terms of fact or reason. And pleading on the authority of others or to encounters with famous men does not substitute for fact and reason, no matter how many times you try to do it.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

The offer is now removed. I would however, still like to call on both you and your teacher to see what I am missing in my understanding. ... SO, I am asking for you and your teacher to demonstrate my limitations and lack of understanding-you so casually discussed here- on me, in person!
In case you missed it- it is you who are leading with your chin. I am simply doing what you said someone will sooner or later do to Dan A....to you.
A simple answer will suffice. Lord knows, that accorfing to you- I may not understand anything else!

Let me be clear in what you propose. I address a number of points drawn from fact and reason in a forum of discussion. I reply to a long pattern of repeated low jibes with a reasoned criticism that they deserve, and instead of taking a reasoned discussion in its own terms, and seeking to prevailing on fact and reason -- you now claim authority to deny the possibility of reasoned debate, and wish to "take it outside."

Just so we're clear on this. What Dan A. is doing to someone he does not even know, nor has taken time to study what he has stated clearly, will eventually get him in serious trouble, and he is doing it on a presumption of YOUR authority. I've had to put foolish and over-eager people who got themselves led into in such unfortunate circumstances in the brig. The fruit truly falls not far from the tree. YOU are partly responsible for his risk in that regard -- and that risk does not come from me. My concern for him is a legitimate concern -- for him and for others who are led to follow in such a path. It is a poor budo for a whole host of reasons -- and beating anyone will not redeem it.

Now we see that that is also the "aiki" you are offering me, as I was kindly, and specifically forewarned by others is your habitual penchant when the direction of an engagement is not to your liking. With some care taken in an effort to see to it that it would eventually come to light here -- that has now been revealed for all who have eyes to see it.

You may be very good and you may be very dangerous, and no doubt there is no lack of people who wish to be both, but it is not Aiki -- and never will be. And I don't need anyone else to tell me that because you just showed it to me.

You did more to substantiate my concerns and my criticism of your project than I ever could have done without your help.

Hmm.. lets see if we can stick to the topic okay?
For the record I do not know Dan A in any manner shape of form, nor most of the others debating with you.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Erick is playing games with the ones presenting their side mostly debating the debating style rather than offering anything of substance in reply.
Case in point when Rob or I or anyone who can do some things over these last few years offers a description of movement, Erick then states what they are doing in western terms. When the person who can actually do it states that isn't -it-Erick responds "they don't understand his terms."
He is just now debating with two engineers one of whom is (of all things) a robotics engineer, who himself has felt and can do some of these things and who has felt others who do it, and both engineers are telling Erick he's wrong in his descriptions. He has the audacity to tell these engineers they don't understand the math and physics involved.
Were -he-seeking truth he would accept their rebuttal and move the discussion forward. He isn't. Instead he is telling engineers who are more capable then he due to the combination of both education and hands on experience-that they don't get it. For me it pretty much destroyed any credibility to the honesty of the debate. There is no seeking of a truth here. It’s all defense.

1. They didn't use your terms because they do not believe they apply. To which you have stated they simply do not get it.
Respond________________________?

Quote:

Now we see that that is also the "aiki" you are offering me, as I was kindly, and specifically forewarned by others is your habitual penchant when the direction of an engagement is not to your liking. With some care taken in an effort to see to it that it would eventually come to light here -- that has now been revealed for all who have eyes to see it.

2. Here you reverse the actual occurance that took place. You Erick, told me through your teacher, what I am not doing and what Aiki is.
Then went on to tell me- I am telling you -what aiki is.
see below. Now you state it was an egging on by design That is as ugly as others have said your real aggenda was in the first place. And I stated I thought you were a stand up guy. It appears I was mistaken.
respond_________________________.

Erick Mead wrote:

Quote:

My teacher has pointed out that Dan is overly focused on the ki of earth and not sufficiently concerned with the ki of heaven. We don't train to resist "pushes." That's not to say that we "can't" -- that is saying that we don't We train to enter pushes. We do however train to aiki age and aiki sage, although those terms are not commonly used.
Both aiki age and aiki sage, in my experience, are related to the ways in which the movement of ki (furitama) is connected (musubi) to that of the opponent. Juji frames aiki in musubi . The nature of that relationship and shape drives the interaction. The rest is dynamic consistency of musubi and furitama at a largely subconscious level. If furitama and/or maai arrive in juji at musubi -- kuzushi results.

So, how's that again? You were the one buddy. I just asked you in no uncertain terms to step up and define my failings and show me in person. And you declined.
respond______________________________
See below

Quote:

You may be very good and you may be very dangerous, and no doubt there is no lack of people who wish to be both, but it is not Aiki -- and never will be. And I don't need anyone else to tell me that because you just showed it to me.

Again you are telling me I do not know aiki, while stating you do. Why won't you or your teacher step up and demonstrate it for me
respond__________________________?

I do hope this isn't the aiki of passive agressive philosophy you are referring to? You know the, "I'll blend with your daring to question me in person aiki?" You brought up practical uses of aiki; aiki age and aiki sage. Two Daito ryu terms, then told me I do not know them or how to do them
Is this your response to my asking you and your teacher to step up to the assertions you made of my level of understaning-in person. I mean, is this it Erick________________________________?

Quote:

This saddens me Erick. But thanks for letting me kow where you are coming from before I came to visit. You take just enough care in insulting me, instead of sticking to the points, to fall under acceptable standards for AIkiweb.
Make no mistake, I extended a clear and sincere offer to show you and discuss things-at my expense- during a family vacation, and then buy you dinner after. This is what I get for the trouble? You turn around a kind offer and insult my motives as some "needy act" for extending it? Gees Erick. Come on man, what's up with that?
The offer is now removed.

I think its pretty low of you to take a kind offer and twist it to an insult of me. And I note again, for the record, you impune, and never aplogize. You just go around it and simply ignore the fact that you said it. I have frequently made sure to commend you and apologize if things get personal when they were not intended to be. Which I did just one page back.
Respond_________________________________

I would however, still like to call on both you and your teacher to see what I am missing in my understanding. Notice I am not insulting you- just sticking to the subject of your argument- that you now understand aiki better than me.
To make it definitive and to address your discussion of me. I state for the record that: I believe neither you or your teacher have any ability to demonstrate an understanding of this topic in depth and will prove -upon testing- to be incapable of demonstrating anything of practical value regarding the use of ki and aiki to me.
I ask again for you to step up and back up your assertions. It can be fun and won't take more than a few minutes. We can use your waza. And Erick
I'll still buy dinner!
Contrary to your quote to Dan A.
I'm a gentleman who is also smilling at my supposed enemy. But not for baring my teeth as you suggest you do- but rather with openess and confidence and a total lack of fear. It is the way to convert them into friends.
How about a response here_________________?

is overly focused on the ki of earth and not sufficiently concerned with the ki of heaven.

I think the reason that the examples tend to stick around the "ki of earth" is because its a good starting point for common understanding. The thing is the whole topic is a lot bigger than just pushing or just grounding.

How is this "ki of earth" used in combination with "Intention" ?

How is this similar or different to "ki of heaven"?

Where does "breathing, breath training, or power derived from such" fit in the picture?

How does someone "fit" their "ki" to another ones "ki" (without moving overtly?)

How does this relate to Ueshiba Morihei standing on a mat and having 10 students fail to push him off, or the Tenryu example?

How does this relate to Chen Bing throwing someone 40% heavier accross the mat?

What kind of training helps to develop this?
What kinds of compatible training are better than others?

Is Aiki A Japanese thing only, just the name?, the concept?

If "aiki" is real can it be analyzed in english/math/physics (that's gotta be obviously true) is there a chance that a description is wrong ?

Is there any chance that O-Sensei was punning spiritually on a body skill?

I have explained, at length that either you've not paid attention to or could not be bothered to look for, nor paid attention to what is in the SPECIFIC video portions I directed you to.

You've explained nothing. The segments you referred to are called "fajin", it's a feature of the Chen style. So? I can point at them too, but I'm honest enough to admit I don't know what he's doing in the meaningful sense - I can see it clearly, but I can't duplicate it well nor can I teach it to someone else. And neither can you. You claim this is mindreading on my part, so prove me wrong: please explain what he is doing inside his body, not in your obtuse irrelevant jargon, but in plain layman's terms. What is he doing with his joints and muscles, in what sequence? What is his mental intention throughout the process? Is he doing anything particular with his breathing before, during, and after those moves? Where does he initiate the power from? Is he tightening and relaxing particular areas of his body? Go ahead. Say anything, anything at all, take a definite position on some detail that can be independently verified. You won't. You don't want to be pinned down on anything, because you don't know anything, and don't want that fact recorded because you're under the delusion that if you don't say anything definitive people might still believe you know something. You're just killing time until you can find out more. That's what I think, and what I see everybody else saying too. But go ahead, prove everyone wrong.

Quote:

Based on my experience, you will take care of the chin thing, I am sure, sooner or later without my help.

A lawyer to the end, I wouldn't expect anything less. Here you once again imply that you could or would be capable or willing to "help" straighten me out for having issues with your postings. This and your prior comment to this effect is essentially an incitement to violence against me on your behalf, as if others should care that you get any negative feedback on your posting style. Maybe you can go to HenchmenRUs.com and hire some goons from the safety of your office. While it's doubtful that your incitement rises to a level that violates internet law, there is certainly nothing manly or honorable about it. I fail to see how it complies with Jun's request to be respectful, so I hope he will allow me to address it for what it is. Don't bring up "martial consequences of rudeness" for disagreeing with you and then hope for others to handle those consequences for you.

Quote:

A gentleman always smiles at his enemies, as much to show his manners, as for the baring of his teeth.

Let's see, "martial consequences", "enemy", etc. for highlighting the obvious lack of any demonstration of actual knowledge of the subject on your part, or the lack of willingness for anyone to vouch for your knowledge of the subject. You don't take criticism very well, do you? Any other decidedly *un*gentlemanly threatening-but-not-directly-from-you-when-pressed comments you care to toss out, or are you done? Funny, I don't have an issue with Dan, Rob, Mike, or anybody else who talks about the subject from the standpoint of actual knowledge and personal experience. A real mystery, that.

I'm not looking to fight anyone.
(Okay, sometimes I admit, I wouldn't say no... but not in this case.)

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

You are more straightforward in your approach to these issues than most, which is a credit to you, and probably to your teacher. You (and they) can presume all you want, and it will trouble me not at all. If you ignore something useful on a supposition, you have only your supposition to blame.

I'm really not trying to "trouble" you. I was trying to figure out how to bridge the gap between our perspectives. I defined "intention up" in pain-staking detail. If that is not connecting to anything on your side, then the only reasonable option left is for a visit. Which is what I think everyone was suggesting.

Otherwise you have this statement that what you are offering is "useful" and I can't see any reason to agree with that. Maybe I'm being thick, but unless you are saying you can do or teach these things using your model, what would the "use" be?

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

If you really conceive that asking to define terms is indicative of anything other than care with meaning, then I don't know what to tell you. I've taken care with meaning since before I began the law twelve years ago, with things physical since I began flying twenty years ago, and with things violent since I started aikido and joined the Navy before that.

Well I think at a certain point of defining terms - we get to such basics like "up" - that it seems like there is no way you could possibly be on the same page as everyone else I've met who had these skills. Gleason sensei who doesn't teach this stuff directly has taught classes of imagery of flowing up through your body like a fire hose that isn't being held by anyone. He discusses the image of how it spirals in the air a bit - and tells you to imagine that and when you stick your arm out for katatetori to think of the arm being supported by those spirals. That is intention up too. Dan about it a bit differently (different image), but EVERYONE and I have traveled a bit and met a lot of people with varying degrees of skills - EVERYONE has some sense of intention up. So if you don't it's a reasonable presumption that you are not doing what they are doing - especially because I thought you were certainly not stating that you had any method for directly teaching these things like the "aiki" skills guys.

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

You admittedly are dwelling on your intention, not primarily dwelling on what your body is actually doing. As Tim noted, your theory is in search of a physical model for its ad hoc training methodology. Effective or not, it has no physical model. Nothing wrong with that, but that's the fact.

The theory of your present training seems to be that if your intention is refined according to the theory of orientation you are using the body will follow suit. You have defined exercises to frame this intention. You have a guru to mold your intention. Fine. It is a yoga and a good one probably. I don't challenge that.

I am focusing on how my body moves and how it moves in relation the movement of another body in connection. Cutting out the middleman, so to speak. When I think less I move better. The less I think about how and why it moves that way when I am moving, the less disconnected my mind is from the doing of the movement. I reflect carefully on the movement after I have ceased doing it rather than being severely intentional while I am doing it.

Well, my point here is that yes - I'm doing that initially becaue I believe it is the fastest method. The assumptin is that I'll be able to let that mental aspect go and just maintain the feeling after it gets burned in.

The other point is that I don't see how you method can possibly be a faster or better method because I don't see any results to compare them. Until I do, I have to reasonably conclude that this method of studying this is not optimal compared to my current approach.

Can we all get along and just discuss?

And by the way - out of context the "we are speaking English" statement I made looks rude as well - but you had just wrote about an example using some made up language and I was addressing that.

Gleason sensei who doesn't teach this stuff directly has taught classes of imagery of flowing up through your body like a fire hose that isn't being held by anyone. He discusses the image of how it spirals in the air a bit - and tells you to imagine that and when you stick your arm out for katatetori to think of the arm being supported by those spirals.

I suggest that his intuitive imagery is far closer to mechanical reality than you may give credit. Look again at the stress tube diagram under torsion -- the compressive and tensile stresses resulting from the shear due to torsion are laid in two opposed spirals (90 degrees offset from one another) wrapping the perimeter of the tube -- one in tension the other in compression.

I have sent you some additional material in PM to avoid clobbering the purity of the "other" discussion.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

... intention up ... EVERYONE has some sense of intention up. So if you don't it's a reasonable presumption that you are not doing what they are doing - especially because I thought you were certainly not stating that you had any method for directly teaching these things like the "aiki" skills guys.

I am practical, despite my interest in the physical models. (I don't consider them impractical as tools). The more common sense perspective is that "intention up" in a loaded condition is NOT the same as "intention up" in an unloaded condition. While it is possible that one might simulate loading with other means ("ground sourcing" I think some have mentioned ) the more practical method for that foundation of skill is to actually handle, bear, shift and project large bulky loads ( and doing tasks involving effort at extension). Toss hay bales, hoe weeds, excavate and move fill, move lumber and sheet goods, hammer nails, chop wood, carry water. Done enough the body learns to adapt itself under actual shifting loads, and to project work. THAT is how people actually developed those foundations historically -- not with arcana of "internal" skills.

I'd be really curious about the physical work history of people who scratch their heads at the internal debate compared to those who find it appealing.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

Well, my point here is that yes - I'm doing that initially because I believe it is the fastest method. The assumption is that I'll be able to let that mental aspect go and just maintain the feeling after it gets burned in.

I suggest actual traditional manual work will provide that faster than anything -- it forms a large part of what I intuitively understand in how to move.

I look at Rob's (very good) descriptions and illustrations of Ark's exercises and what little has been divulged here of the manner of doing others such as shiko. From that it seems, visually and intuitively that you are simulating the condition of the body in a loaded condition -- but without the load, to which my response is -- most genuinely -- But Why? Why not just work on actually loaded stability (most usefully and traditionally in doing heavy labor of the types mentioned) and then, depending on whether the ACTUAL input loads you or not, then deal with an intuitive actuality rather than some intensively conscious construct of it.

Catching a tossed sack of cement or fertilizer is my idea of handling a push. While my feet don't move, there are definite dynamic components that come very naturally in the rhythm of the loaded input, that the IMA "push" scenarios make arbitrary and artificial. That's what makes me -- well, scratch my head at the artificiality from a pure practicality standpoint. Catching and tossing bags of fertilizer is very close to funetori undo, ude furi and happo undo (Surprise! Surprise!) Things that may seem "magical" in the case of simulating loading conditions and then "testing" with unloaded pushes is a natural consequence of managing and shifting ACTUAL loads.

If you've "trained" by working with actual loads you tend respond instinctively according to ACTUAL loads -- thus the "ki of heaven" and the "ki of earth" are not mental images -- they are felt and intuitive conditions. But it is also clear they are NOT the same either as the skill contructs that are being trained on this topic. . The natural response to an unloaded push is to move not the same as your "push" with a simulated load (and yet still not ACTUALLY loaded). The body perceives it differently. To my way of thinking, I trust the body to know the difference between what is constructed and what is real. And as I see it, that is in agreement with the statement made elsewhere by someone else of some authority that there is too much attention on this topic to the "ki of earth" and not enough to the "ki of heaven."

If a lateral push occurs in an unloaded condition -- quite simply, you move.( ki of heaven) If a lateral push occurs in an loaded condition, you usually don't -- because you are loaded. (ki of earth). Depending on what you are doing, you may be in a position to accept the load or to divert it -- you can catch the sack and hold it, or receive it only to toss it on, or toss it back. Either way the push, practically speaking, is a transient because I am going to shortly stabilize under it, or transfer return that load elsewhere (or back whence it came.) So what you are looking at statically, I am looking at transiently -- pushes are pulses and so my cyclic point of view is not so far afield. I suggest that my outlook is more realistic, and more grounded in tradition.

Load conditions determine whether you are free to move. If the push does not load the structure, I am free to move -- so why wouldn't I move when he is attacking me, and I am unloaded? If I am caught in a loaded condition on the other hand, and he attacks, my options are more limited; I am not so free to move and things have to be done creatively to both handle the load and respond to the attack, or turn load into a counter. But I don't have to worry about "not moving" -- the load largely does that for me.

If I want to move in a loaded condition, why not practice moving loads? If I want to drop or project the load, why not practice dropping and projecting loads?

If you want something more "gym-like" than warehouse, construction or farmwork maybe kettlebells -- but there really is no substitute for dealing with large loads like ungainly bales or sacks of stuff or that have long wobbly awkward moment arms quite like moving lumber or sheets of plywood or drywall by yourself.

Or maybe even, in a pinch, lifting, dropping, and projecting us pantywaists in pleated skirts

I look at Rob's (very good) descriptions and illustrations of Ark's exercises and what little has been divulged here of the manner of doing others such as shiko. From that it seems, visually and intuitively that you are simulating the condition of the body in a loaded condition -- but without the load...

You're simply wrong about what the exercise is doing.

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

... to which my response is -- most genuinely -- But Why? Why not just work on actually loaded stability...

Ahhh, why indeed... Maybe you should contemplate that question, instead of rushing forward.

Ark will demonstrate shiko with a person on his back (0:34 - 0:44), so he obviously can handle the load. But why doesn't he normally practice that way (with 175-200lbs on his back, I mean), if it's better/faster as you suggest? And how is it that he's acquired the skill to handle such a load---with such ease, no less---without regularly lifting that much weight?

As someone who used to load trucks for UPS, I can say with authority that it's not very easy for someone who's only 175 lbs---and that's my weight, I think Ark might be a couple pounds lighter---to lift that much, even when you stay upright and load the weight into your thighs...

If you want something more "gym-like" than warehouse, construction or farmwork maybe kettlebells -- but there really is no substitute for dealing with large loads like ungainly bales or sacks of stuff or that have long wobbly awkward moment arms quite like moving lumber or sheets of plywood or drywall by yourself

If you tried, you could not be more perfectly...wrong.

Since I was brought up by a farm boy turned contractor, into a family of contractors, taught how to carry and manage loads like shoveling all day, carrying 100lb shingles up a ladder, or bags of mortar or brick, long before I got out, I learned to do everything you just mentioned. I learned a much more practical means of shoveling and carrying than most guys ever would and used more lower leg and back power. Add to that- that I lived in the Gym mostly power lifting and wrestling for fun.
None...of which prepared me for meeting a little man from Japan with a different idea. Which he kept saying to me was "Danny...different" while showing me things to do with my body. And none of that I truly got till I STOPPED lifting and started training solo to change my body.
.
You are far, far from being the only one to have told me all this. I have yet to have a single guy walk through my door or train with me anywhere- who wasn't training internals- and could do anything we do. Most will tell you it feels unnatural and weird, and takes some getting used to. Just the way we train to carry our weight and walk or hit is counter intuitive. Even after being shown, they can't do it and default back to norms they and everyone else uses.
And *THAT* is the mistake in your idea of first training under heavy load. You default...every time.
Most experienced people already know that
This is why it so obvious to most that you..."don't get it."
But since you and your teacher know how I train and discussed my low understanding and where my deficiencies lay, why the questions? Let me come down so you can show me the way. Your post above clearly outlines a common laborers understanding of the martial body-one that you say you embrace. So I wonder in a show and tell, who will be showing the elementary school process and who will be pointing in the direction of the grad school process?
Have you talked to your teacher yet_______________________?

may I interrupt you folks on your schedule discussion on what is up and down and side to side.

Got questions for internal folks because I am a bit confused on the subject of breathing. yes, I know I still am breathing. I got what Rob John and other internal folks talked about body posture and structure. even tried the squat thing that Rob J. wrote, thighs still burned. going to work on that.

Here is my confusion and hoping for enlightenment or someone to knock me on the head, whichever comes first. in various martial arts, especially striking arts, we taught to breath out when we strike, breath in when we gather energy for the strike; also we need to synchronize our breath to the movements. I read somewhere (can't remember where, getting old and all) that your body got most of the oxygen during in-breath and that you have the most energy during that time, so why don't we strike (or make contact in aikido) during the in-breath? or should we? I asked Ikeda sensei this question what should my breathing at the connection point. He said it doesn't matter. I asked Howie Popkin about the breathing aspect, and he said "small technique, small breath, big technique, big breath". I read the systema breathing book and it said your breathing should be steady regardless of the speed of your movement, i.e. breathing doesn't need to be synchronized with movement. Then adding on top of all that, we have the Buddha breathing and the Taoism breathing approaches. I have done Buddha breathing most of my life, but at the moment I seemed to do half Buddha and half Taoism naturally, i.e. my stomach doesn't contract whether I am breath in or out; it seemed to expand all the time (could be that I am fat but I won't claim that story). Seemed as though there is a big balloon, around my belly button region, moving up as I breath in, and moving down as I breath out. maybe this should be a different topic all together.

btw, I am not claiming that I am doing anything internal. couldn't tell you what internal is other than what I ate at dim sum.

Just to throw in another titbit of data (I'm disinclined to reply to any posts that quote people on my ignore list):

Ability to resist does not mean that resisting is desirable. In fact, it is important to not resist, but instead to move. Freely. Seen from the other side, while it may not be possible to unbalance or throw a partner who is strong and rooted (given a set of rules by which the practice under consideration is done), and attempting to do so might incur severe and unnecessary stress oneself, one may still move oneself freely. Learning to do that is a vital skill.

What happens to a person when they realize that the spear is not used to thrust, when for decades that had been the ingrained idea? When they realize that one instead does a super-Zorro impression on the other party with it? And why that is necessary and preferable and universally applicable, and how the training emphasis then changes though the "exercises" look the same. And that this type of movement and intention likely form the same relationship to "empty-hand" (hollow laugh) bujutsu as calligraphy and tea ceremony, noh and so on have when their relationship to martial arts is mentioned.

Finally: what kind of mindset develops then that can meet an opponent's "A" not with "B" or "C" or "D", but with "not A"?

(The answer, in my limited experience: absolutely f**king scary. And seemingly insane because it can't be tracked by ordinarily-developed thinking)

<snip>
btw, I am not claiming that I am doing anything internal. couldn't tell you what internal is other than what I ate at dim sum.

Phi:

Breathing mentioned in internal arts is simply another method of conditioning and strengthening some parts of the body that you normally don't have access to. Later the breath doesn't matter. (Btw, I'm not at that stage, not by a long shot! )
The thing about breath affecting your "internal" pressure is a good start though.

Just get someone to show you the basics of what is being conditioned, how to condition it, etc.
There's a gazillion different ways, but there are more efficient ways, more subtle ways, softer ways, harder ways, more sophisticated ways etc etc.

Oh, thighs burning in the beginning is a given. The fun starts once you get past that stage. Once your back and crotch start getting sore, then it really starts to get interesting

... And none of that I truly got till I STOPPED lifting and started training solo to change my body.
.
You are far, far from being the only one to have told me all this.

As usual, you read what you will -- not what I wrote.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

...And *THAT* is the mistake in your idea of first training under heavy load. You default...every time.

If you would listen to what people said instead of what you want to respond to, it might be productive.

It is not about training strength bu about what you do having exhausted it -- under circumstances that ordinary muscles cease to predictably obey the will that the mind must drive dynamic and structure by other means.

If you work past strength in typical terms-- all you have left is structure and dynamic. If you are paying attention at the time, you realize how little strength contributes to powerful performance. That's all I have to say about that.

Truth does not come in a zero-sum package. Your experience is evidence of the point about the effect of predisposition through exhaustive work for the things you say you can do. You had that foundation so you are NOT evidence that it was NOT effective.

But can you be so sure that it could not have provided that foundation, when you could not figure it out without some old Japanese guy pointing out? Or was THAT what he saw in you, and you simply remained ignorant of the nature of the thing you had ? Or as Marvin the Martian said you "got the silly thing in reverse."

I thought I had been dismissed -- but I don't stand in the way of you inviting who you wish to invite.